Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mental Liquidity

collabfund.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 123 posts

Re: Mental Liquidity

#81

Post by throwaway14356 »

javajosh wrote: post #61
saiya-jin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And this is right and good. I disagree (without down-voting). This is basically 1-man echo chamber, you take what you like (it doesn't matter how many eloquent words you use to describe this, result is same), reject what would challenge your beliefs and would make them weaker. That's the opposite of critical thinking so needed in real world, and prime source why the current world, particularly west, is so torn to p…

It seems like you misread what I was saying. I am not advocating a "1-man echo chamber" - that would be a person who never changes their beliefs. When I say "weaker" and "stronger" I am referring to the whole of the belief network, not individual beliefs. This means, generally, that every change reduces inconsistency and increases cohesion of the entire network . The ignorant people in the world pay no attention to c…

>This means, generally, that every change reduces inconsistency and increases cohesion of the entire network

This is analog to growing the tree, the page talks about cutting it down.

One could give many examples but the good ones are unlikely to resonate with others.

To give a poor one. There was a time when I understood human decision making as a hierarchy of people in increasingly greater positions of power with access to better information and to people with greater skill. Then one day it struck me how they too are just going though the motions with their freedom for creativity limited to a single potentially career ending move. The machine happily grinds on without anyone behind the wheel.

Re: Mental Liquidity

#82

Post by throwaway14356 »

testacct22 wrote: post #65
saiya-jin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And this is right and good. I disagree (without down-voting). This is basically 1-man echo chamber, you take what you like (it doesn't matter how many eloquent words you use to describe this, result is same), reject what would challenge your beliefs and would make them weaker. That's the opposite of critical thinking so needed in real world, and prime source why the current world, particularly west, is so torn to p…

> reject what would challenge your beliefs and would make them weaker. Most unresolved disagreements I know of are because the groups disagree on some unprovable underlying assumption. Switching positions on it doesn't make the beliefs stronger or weaker Being able to believe something and stick to it, regardless of challenges from competing interests or forms of coercion: that's more valuable in practice than being…

Binary people are funny. Everything is always 1 or 0, nothing is ever undefined and the idea to have different levels of certainty never occurs to them.

It is a rather offensive way to portray the world. All the questions, all the puzzles, all the mystery, everything has been answered and further investigation frowned upon. They would have to again defend their chosen "truth", they would have to question everything!

Re: Mental Liquidity

#83

Post by neerajsi »

ABCLAW wrote: post #78
javajosh wrote: post #24

The prerequisite for "mental liquidity" is articulated by Aristotle: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." If you entertain the thought, this gives you the chance to try out a new belief network. If you find your belief network would be strengthened by its inclusion, then you adopt it. Otherwise, you reject it. In this way, ones interconnected set of beliefs grow…

There's a common issue in philosophy and epistemology over how we come to know things. We wanted to know what 'knowledge' was, and settled upon the concept of a 'justified true belief' for a fairly long period of time. However, one day, a philosopher found a situation in which a justified true belief was incorrect. This is the Gettier problem. What you describe is something akin to a network of baysian conditionals a…

Thanks for your point about death.

Death forces our species wide belief set to go through the constrained channel of education and communication, the same way that our bodily attributes go through the constrained channel of our germ-line genes.

This process lossily compresses the signals, which allows for drift or attenuation when the next generation reconstructs the beliefs and associated behaviors. Transmission also applies stress that acts as a filter to weed out beliefs that are no longer adaptive.

Re: Mental Liquidity

#84

Post by neerajsi »

HellDunkel wrote: post #57

I just finished the Einstein biography by Walter I. and found Einsteins stubbornness quite entertaining. He knew about this trait, accepted it as an effect of ageing and even was making jokes about it. He simply disliked some facts about quantum m. and allowed himself to pursue a rather fruitless endeavour for many years. He knew that this kind of stubbornness would kill the career of a younger scientist but he could…

You're quite right. Science requires the skepticism to apply the stress to theories needed to make them strong. I'm assuming Einstein tried to raise objections using evidence to the contrary and alternative explanations.

Re: Mental Liquidity

#85

Post by MrPatan »

javajosh wrote: post #24

The prerequisite for "mental liquidity" is articulated by Aristotle: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." If you entertain the thought, this gives you the chance to try out a new belief network. If you find your belief network would be strengthened by its inclusion, then you adopt it. Otherwise, you reject it. In this way, ones interconnected set of beliefs grow…

The mind that doesn't want to risk entertaining "wrong" truths can't stand being reminded of the fact.

Re: Mental Liquidity

#87

Post by wayeq »

> Albert Einstein hated the idea of quantum physics.

Einstein came up with most of what physicists now recognize as the essential features of quantum physics. He was not anti quantum, he just believed randomness could not be a fundamental feature of nature.

Re: Mental Liquidity

#88

Post by dgs_sgd »

zug_zug wrote: post #34
trentnix wrote: post #25

I've heard it also said "strong opinions, weakly held". Unlike "mental liquidity", it doesn't require explanation.

I disagree, I just heard this phrase from you the first time just now, and I don't think it's self-explanatory. It's unclear to me in what respect the opinions are "strong" if not one's conviction in them. To my mind a strong opinion is an opinion one is confident in. Also it's unclear to me if/how/why this is better than "less opinions". Like is it better to have a "strong opinion weakly held" on topic X versus "My…

> To my mind a strong opinion is an opinion one is confident in.

That's the correct interpretation of "strong opinions", as I understand the phrase.

The "weakly held" part means that you are willing to adjust your opinion in the face of contradictory evidence, which is difficult to do for deeply held beliefs.

Re: Mental Liquidity

#89

Post by lo_zamoyski »

ABCLAW wrote: post #78
javajosh wrote: post #24

The prerequisite for "mental liquidity" is articulated by Aristotle: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." If you entertain the thought, this gives you the chance to try out a new belief network. If you find your belief network would be strengthened by its inclusion, then you adopt it. Otherwise, you reject it. In this way, ones interconnected set of beliefs grow…

There's a common issue in philosophy and epistemology over how we come to know things. We wanted to know what 'knowledge' was, and settled upon the concept of a 'justified true belief' for a fairly long period of time. However, one day, a philosopher found a situation in which a justified true belief was incorrect. This is the Gettier problem. What you describe is something akin to a network of baysian conditionals a…

The Gettier problem is overrated.

The question is "what is knowledge?", not "do we know that we know p?". And I see no issue with the definition of knowledge as justified, true belief. Now, if I believe p, and you ask me whether I know p, I may say yes. But whether I actually know p will depend on whether my justification is valid (that it really is a justification and a sufficient one) and whether it is true, which has nothing to do with whether anyone knows whether the justification is valid and the belief is true. It's a separate question, and conflating the two questions leads to an infinite regress of skepticism. So the definition of knowledge qua knowledge still stands.

I would also suggest you try to apply your general approach to the very theory you are proposing. I see an opportunity for retorsion arguments.

Re: Mental Liquidity

#90

Post by lo_zamoyski »

wayeq wrote: post #87

> Albert Einstein hated the idea of quantum physics. Einstein came up with most of what physicists now recognize as the essential features of quantum physics. He was not anti quantum, he just believed randomness could not be a fundamental feature of nature.

N.b.. Rob Koon's book[0] may be of interest to some of the more philosophically inclined. He argues that the proper interpretation of QM is in light of hylomorphic dualism.

[0] https://a.co/d/6eq227u

Post reply on HN